msnbc.com video: Kaku: 'Like squirt guns against a forest fire'

[OKIsItJustMe]

Kaku: 'Like squirt guns against a forest fire'

Physicist Michio Kaku tells msnbc's Richard Liu that cooling attempts like using helicopter drops to cool down the 700 tons of spent fuel at Japan's Fukushima reactor site won't be enough, that they would be better served with a 'Chernobyl' approach.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42130567#42130567

[Turbineguy]

1. It's not about cooling down.

It's about buying time. And they seem to have bought it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Did you watch the video?

“Buying time for what?” might be a good question.

As he points out, the 800 normal workers couldn't handle 1 meltdown. Can 50 workers handle multiple meltdowns simultaneously?

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. Teller proposed plants that needed NO workers: read this here on DU a bit ago:

In the 1950s, Edward Teller developed technology that would go a long way toward eliminating all the expense, delay, and risk associated with these reactors. Teller advocated nuclear power plants that would be "walk-away safe" - that is, capable of running without supervision - and that could be "operated by children." But the concept was shelved because it would produce no excess plutonium for bombs.

[wtmusic]

4. Teller also wanted to use H-bombs to build shipping ports.

Quite a character, he was. :crazy:

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. The "walk-away safe" dream lives on

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/17/134615077/Newer-Nuclear-Reactor-Designs-Aim-To-Allay-Safety-Fears

Nuclear Reactor Redesigns Aim To Allay Safety Fears

by Martin Kaste

March 17, 2011

Japan's nuclear crisis has raised fears about nuclear power around the world, including in the U.S. But advocates of nuclear power say new technology could allay many of those fears. It's possible to build reactors that are much less vulnerable to a meltdown — even if they're abandoned in an emergency.

Some newer designs use what's called "passive safety" features — like the Westinghouse AP1000, which uses water for cooling, like most reactors, but can operate with no one at the controls.

"You should be able to walk away for 72 hours with no intervention," says Per Peterson, chairman of the department of nuclear engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. "Then, at 72 hours, the intervention is to come in and refill a pool with water, which is something you could do in many different ways, such as, say, with a fire truck."

But the promise of "passive safety" doesn't convince Edwin Lyman, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"The idea is, you know, it's too good to be true," he says.

…

(Audio and transcript at link.)